Saurons Weapon of Choice?

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Alternately, maybe he himself didn't make use of weapons, thinking he could accomplish his victories with his aura of terror, or that failing, with brute strength.

I personally take this view. I've never imagined Sauron coming out in armour and wielding a weapon, I actually always imagined him unarmed and unarmoured, trying to overwhelm Gil-galad and Elendil through furious raw strength and the sheer awfulness of his presence.

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Note also this, from the Scroll of Isildur:

...Sauron's hand, which was black and yet burned like fire, and so Gil-galad was destroyed

This occurred to me too. Sauron could apparently burn with a touch, so perhaps he would not need conventional weapons.
"But at last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth"
This was an act of desperation, not a calculated military manoeuvre. Sauron never expected to have to actually fight his enemies.

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

Sauron fought in battles didn't he?

Almost never. The films portray Sauron weighing into the battle on the slopes of Orodruin as some kind of doomsday for the Last Alliance, but really it was Sauron's final gambit and one which didn't really work.

But, when you ask someone 'What was Sauron's weapon and what did it do?', most people would reply with the description of what showed in the movie, not say 'It wasn't stated'. - That's if they know much about LOTR.

Would they? Surely someone who knew "much about LOTR" would know that it's never stated, although "most people" probably don't know "much about LOTR." Unless you mean "know the films well" or "treat the books and the films as interchangeable", which they're not, and which these days is a source of endless confusion. Anyway, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true. Just because the films have coloured people's imaginations doesn't mean that their depictions have the slightest relevance when it comes to discussing what Professor Tolkien himself actually wrote.

While some of the arguments here for why he could have had a mace are quite interesting, at the same time it's all just speculation because Professor Tolkien never wrote what weapon he used, if he even used one at all.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Sauron could apparently burn with a touch, so perhaps he would not need conventional weapons.

That's interesting. Oddly enough, Gollum, who had presumably seen Sauron personally during his captivity in Mordor, told Frodo and Sam:

'He has only four on the Black Hand, but they are enough.'

TTT The Black Gate Is Closed

Why would Sauron only have had one hand that was black, unless it was intentional? And, tangentially, I wonder if that had anything to do with Saruman's choice of the White Hand as his own symbol.

Originally Posted by Zigûr;687475"

But at last the siege was so strait that Sauron himself came forth"
This was an act of desperation, not a calculated military manoeuvre. Sauron never expected to have to actually fight his enemies.

Almost never. The films portray Sauron weighing into the battle on the slopes of Orodruin as some kind of doomsday for the Last Alliance, but really it was Sauron's final gambit and one which didn't really work.

I see Sauron's coming forth as mainly an act of rage, and revenge. His armies were destroyed, and his ideal of dominion in Middle-earth had been brought to naught by Elves and Men. What better act of vengeance than to kill with his own hands the kings of his enemies?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Why would Sauron only have had one hand that was black, unless it was intentional?

Why assume just one black hand? True, Gollum uses the singular article; but then Tolkien also uses "the Eye of Sauron" when we know he had two.

I'm inclined to think Tolkien's vision of Sauron (in his post-fall of Numenor form) was not unconnected to his essay/note on Sigelhearwan, a word which by late OE was used to translate "Ethiopians, Africans" but which JRRT argued on philological grounds had originally referred to the Giants of Muspellheim, black-skinned with fiery eyes.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Why assume just one black hand? True, Gollum uses the singular article; but then Tolkien also uses "the Eye of Sauron" when we know he had two.

The Eye has certainly received its share of discussion over time, but I see it as mostly symbolic.

That said, it just seems odd that Gollum would make the distinction of "the Black Hand" if both Sauron's hands were like that.
Also, as stated above, Isildur noted that it was Sauron's hand which had borne the Ring that was black, not his hands.

[Tuor in Gondolin]

PJ's mace swatting a dozen (or hundreds) at one blow by Sauron was, of course, ridiculous. Sort of the way PJ exaggerates just about everything, for example making wargs superwargs in TTT movie.

The impression you get from LoTR is of essential single combat style
(like in manyHollywood Greek/Roman battle scenes).

Since Sauron was a disciple of Morgoth I'd look to Morgoth's battlle
with Fingolfin after the Dagor Bragollach.

Fingolfin challenged Morgoth to single combat.

...it is said that he took not the challenge willingly; for though his might was greatest of all things in this world, alone of the Valar he knew fear. But he could not now deny the challenge before his captains; for the rocks rang with the shrill music of Fingolfin's horn, and his voice came keen and clear down into the depths of Angband; and Fingolfin called Morgoth craven, and lord of slaves. Therefore Morgoth came...And he issued forth in black armour;and he stood before the King like a tower, iron-crowned, and his vast shield, sable unblazoned, cast a shadow over him
[Fingolfin]...Then Morgoth hurled aloft Grond, the Hammer of the Underground, and swung it down like a bolt of thunder.

So Morgoth was phyiscally imposing, but it was possible for a single elf (granted the greatest remaining in Beleriand) to fight him. Sauron was obviously much less physically daunting, although (being more then an eyeball) more imposing then even a single elf or Numenorean of the Third Age, so it may well have been a two or three on one battle, or as Gilgalad wounded Sauron while being killed another of the Last Alliance skewed Sauron. Then took or cut the Ring off his hand.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Tuor in Gondolin

So Morgoth was phyiscally imposing, but it was possible for a single elf (granted the greatest remaining in Beleriand) to fight him. Sauron was obviously much less physically daunting, although (being more then an eyeball) more imposing then even a single elf or Numenorean of the Third Age, so it may well have been a two or three on one battle, or as Gilgalad wounded Sauron while being killed another of the Last Alliance skewed Sauron. Then took or cut the Ring off his hand.

I doubt any Elf or Man could have taken down Sauron alone. In Letters #246, Tolkien gives this about Sauron's Third Age embodiment:

...in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic.

That would really have been a weaker incarnation than that faced by Elendil and Gil-galad, since Sauron had been obliged to rebuild himself after the loss of the Ring.
So, I agree that it took three of his greatest foes working together to defeat Sauron, even when he apparently had no weapons but his innate spiritual and physical power.

[Zigûr]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

So, I agree that it took three of his greatest foes working together to defeat Sauron, even when he apparently had no weapons but his innate spiritual and physical power.

I think this is important. Elendil and Gil-galad were evidently very mighty individuals of their respective races both spiritually and physically. Despite being more powerful, I'm not sure Sauron would try to best them in a contest of weapons but rather a display of sheer force. I picture Sauron emerging in a furious rage literally grappling with his foes - as we've established, Gil-galad was burnt to death by the heat of Sauron's hand. Narsil was not broken by Sauron but rather snapped under Elendil as he fell. Isildur claims to have "dealt the Enemy his death-blow" however, so seemingly it was Isildur who brought the combat to its conclusion. Is there a difference between this death-blow and Isildur using the hilt-shard of Narsil to cut the Ring from Sauron's finger?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

The Eye has certainly received its share of discussion over time, but I see it as mostly symbolic.

That said, it just seems odd that Gollum would make the distinction of "the Black Hand" if both Sauron's hands were like that.
Also, as stated above, Isildur noted that it was Sauron's hand which had borne the Ring that was black, not his hands.

Saruman not only adopted the White Hand as his symbol, but his Orcs even referred to "the White Hand at gives us mansflesh to eat." I don't think this implies that Saruman didn't possess two hands both pale pinkish in hue.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Saruman not only adopted the White Hand as his symbol, but his Orcs even referred to "the White Hand at gives us mansflesh to eat." I don't think this implies that Saruman didn't possess two hands both pale pinkish in hue.

However, the Orcs were referring to a symbol only. Gollum was speaking of Sauron's physical hand. If Gollum had said "the Red Eye", I could see the parallel.

[jallanite]

It seems to me that William Cloud Hicklin’s point is that the Orcs and Gollum are using the term hand in a different way, the Orcs as a symbol used to represent Saruman as a whole and Gollum using the “Black Hend” to refer to Sauron’s physical black hand.

No parallel is suggested by Hiacklin, but is indeed denied by him implicitly, so naturally Inziladun doesn’t see a ṗarallel which doesn’t exist, and which no-one else apparently sees.

Note that Tolkien’s only picture of Sauron can be seen at http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l3SDT89zXC...+of+Sauron.jpg .

Only one arm and hand is shown (and only Sauron’s right eye), but there is nothing to indicate that the viewer is supposed to suppose that the other is missing rather than merely not shown. It is Sauron’s right hand that is shown, and it has the full complement of a thumb and four fingers. Presuming that the image represents Sauron as re-embodied after having his ring finger cut off by Isildur, it appears that Sauron’s Black Hand was his unshown left hand.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

It's fine, learned discourse requires a antithesis along with a thesis in order to try and reach synthesis. you just hit a raw nerve in me; the whole thing reminded me of a period on another literature related forum where a person arrived who had decided that only that which the original author had said was canon (and unlike tolkien this work had mutiple sucessor authors who were generally aknowledged as being canon as well) and that therefore all other works should neither exist nor be discussed and the original authour should not be discussed and explored either, his words should simply be accepted at face value as the literal gospel. That occurance ended nastily with the individual hurling curses (not swear words actual curses of the "may all your family get cancer and may you be flayed alive and burn in hell" type) at everyone else in the discussion, usually before they had actually said anything (he decided that anyone who had stayed out of the whole thing was against him as well). I NEVER want to go through one of those again, so I get edgy when I think another one is coming.

Well, Alfirin, I do think there’s an enormous difference between what I did and the kind of behaviour you describe.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Would they? Surely someone who knew "much about LOTR" would know that it's never stated, although "most people" probably don't know "much about LOTR." Unless you mean "know the films well" or "treat the books and the films as interchangeable", which they're not, and which these days is a source of endless confusion. Anyway, just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true.

In my experience “fanon” can become quite as rigid as “canon”– maybe more so, since it won’t permit much in the way of a reality check– it tends to become a matter of, “well, all my friends think so”. And when the entire point is to make a single “official” version of something left open by the original author... well, I think that’s pretty restrictive.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

Just because the films have coloured people's imaginations doesn't mean that their depictions have the slightest relevance when it comes to discussing what Professor Tolkien himself actually wrote.

While some of the arguments here for why he could have had a mace are quite interesting, at the same time it's all just speculation because Professor Tolkien never wrote what weapon he used, if he even used one at all.

I think we need to break the issue down a bit–

1. Is there any reason to believe Tolkien intended Sauron to use a mace?

is not the same question as

2. Is it all right for someone to depict the character this way?

So far, I don’t believe we’ve seen anything that would support a “yes” answer to the first question, or a “no” answer to the second.

[Dark Lord]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

So far, I don’t believe we’ve seen anything that would support a “yes” answer to the first question, or a “no” answer to the second.

Maybe it's just left to our own imagination?

I 'personally' like the film adapt-ions of himself rather than what I have read about him from the books.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, Alfirin, I do think there’s an enormous difference between what I did and the kind of behaviour you describe.

Maybe so maybe I'm being paranoid. That experiance left me as a living example of that old aphorism that "A burned cat will fear a cold stove" (or, to my preference the Japanese version "A man who has been bitten by a snake will fear a rotted rope.")

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

Maybe so maybe I'm being paranoid.

Well, unless you really believe my post up at #9 is somehow equivalent to saying "may all your family get cancer and may you be flayed alive and burn in hell”...

Originally Posted by Alfirin

That experiance left me as a living example of that old aphorism that "A burned cat will fear a cold stove" (or, to my preference the Japanese version "A man who has been bitten by a snake will fear a rotted rope.")

But the cat can hardly expect stoves to be abolished? (Actually, it might, being a cat, but you know what I mean.)

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

Maybe it's just left to our own imagination?

Exactly.